[tei-council] Hyphenation discussion

[Brett Barney]

Hmmm. I interpreted (d) to mean (c) *plus* a comment. That is, I
interpreted "add new @breaking attribute" in (d) as being shorthand for
"add a new explicit @breaking attribute with three possible values." If
that's an accurate interpretation, it sounds like what you're after, right?
More important, if I misinterpreted, Lou, please tell me so that I can
rethink.

Brett


tei-council-bounces at lists.village.Virginia.EDU wrote on 01/24/2011 03:01:26
PM:

> From:
>
> Piotr Bański <bansp at o2.pl>
>
> To:
>
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>
> Date:
>
> 01/24/2011 03:00 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: [tei-council] Hyphenation discussion
>
> I'm not sure how exclusive (c) and (d) are:
>
> I like to have @type ready to use, it seems relatively cheap to have and
> very handy sometimes (I yearn for att.typed in gramGrp; gonna pester you
> about that some day). But if @type remains, it would be good to have a
> tight list for @breaking, to indicate clearly that when someone wants to
> say "inWord" (or equivalent), they should go for @breaking, rather than
> devise new values for @type. This means (c). I see some possible merits
> of (d) and I don't have enough experience to say which of the two works
> better on the users. They are not mutually exclusive, are they.
>
> I'd say (c) followed closely by (d). As in: prefer positive, explicit
> values to loose, schema-external negative hints for the user (though
> there's nothing wrong with having the latter if you also have the
> former, it seems to me).
>
> Best,
>
>   Piotr
>
>
> On 2011-01-23 17:04, Lou Burnard wrote:
> > I suppose it's a hopeless task to get closure on hyphenation (ha ha),
> > but let's try anyway.
> >
> > Apart from adding the explanatory text which I circulated previously,
> > modulo the changes already proposed, I think the options are as
follows:
> >
> > a) add to 3.2 the text circulated previously , and add some more
> > suggested values to the @type attribute, but make it (even more)
> > explicit that these are just suggestions for how you might use that
> > attribute
> >
> > b) ditto, but make the list tighter and remove redundancy from it (i.e.

> > either inWord or noBreak but not both)
> >
> > c) leave @type alone, but add a new explicit @breaking attribute with
> > three possible values
> >
> > d) leave @type alone, add new @breaking attribute, add a comment that
> > you shouldn't use @type to do the job of @breaking (or indeed of @ed)
> >
> > e) add @breaking, remove @type
> >
> > Can we have a quick show of hands from ALL council members on which of
> > these options they would most/least like to live with?
> >
> > P.S.
> >
> > I persist in thinking that the @cert issue is different -- if we apply
> > @cert to an <lb/> we are saying something about how certain we are that

> > there is a line (or whatever) beginning here. I find it hard to imagine

> > a case in which this is meaningful -- we're not talking about whether
or
> > not the line of our transcription always began here (if we think it
> > didn't, we'd put in a <gap/> which could then have @cert)  but whether
> > it does in the document/object we're transcribing. But, as I say, in
any
> > case it's a different question, so please don't comment on that in
> > response to this messsage!
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tei-council mailing list
> > tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> > http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
> >
> > PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived